PRAYER-BOOK REFORM.
[TO THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."] !Sret—Some weeks ago I wrote a letter to the Spectator urging 'the necessity of Prayer-book reform. Other letters followed, but the writers drifted into the discussion of " sacerdotalism," and my main point was lost sight of. May I venture to suggest that if the " comprehensiveness " about which so much is written is really desired it can only be effected by a 'revision of the Prayer-book ? As it is, very few clergymen observe all the rubrics strictly, but if a few practical -changes were made there would be no place for " the miserable Tu quoque" (as Dr. Kitto well calls it in his letter to the Times), which is the sole ritualistic argument, and which is iterated and reiterated in different words until people lose sight of the low ground on which it is based. We are in danger of " Prayer-book-olatry " superseding -"Bibliolatry," whereas if the Church of England would set about reform on the lines of the American Prayer-book we should have something worth calling "comprehensiveness." As it is, I fear the Bishops will advise a few prominent ritualists not to talk about the Mass, &c., for the next few months, and by this time next year we shall have all the abuses back with additions. Perhaps this may be considered unjust to the Bishops, but can we expect anything better after the way they have manipulated the Lambeth Judgment? Then the one thing which was promised to non-ritualists was that the " manual acts" should be seen. How many Bishops -celebrate so as to allow the congregation to see them? I have seen a good many Bishops celebrate since the -Judgment, and I do not remember seeing one take a position which enabled the people to see the aforesaid acts. And the younger clergy all consecrate with their backs to the people. I ventured to mention the subject to one Bishop, and he said, "If there were any of the congregation at the sides they could see what I did." This was an obvious evasion. I asked a brother clergyman why he consecrated this way. He was more ingenuous than the Bishop, for he promptly replied, " How can I turn my back on my God ? " These replies are not encouraging as to the consideration that the unfortunate members of "the comprehensive Church" who belong to the parties of Simeon and Maurice will receive at the bands of the dominant section.—I am, Sir, &c.,
C. H. B.
Previous page
